Kill the security bill

Now you see it, now you do not. The draconian bill on national security, endorsed by the previous House of Representatives in October, is making a comeback. Like a peekaboo game, the bill, known by its Indonesian acronym PKB (Penanggulangan Keadaan Bahaya, or Emergency Situation Containment), is back in the forefront of the national political agenda, thanks to House Speaker Akbar Tandjung. Except this Pee-Ka-Bee is no laughing matter.

For reasons as yet unknown, Akbar is pressuring President Abdurrahman Wahid to sign the bill into law. One thing we do know is that the bill would give the military a virtual free rein over the country, or a particular region, in times of emergency. And we also know that the definition of emergency is so vague as to be open to interpretation. Signing the bill into law would restore a lot of the powers the President has stripped from the military over these last five months. It would be political suicide for Abdurrahman, and sound the death knell for democracy.

The bill was drafted by the Ministry of Defense, which at the time was led by Gen. Wiranto, whom the President ousted from the post of coordinating minister for political affairs and security in February. Akbar's Golkar Party and the Indonesian Military (TNI), which together controlled the last House, secured a swift passage for the bill, ignoring overwhelming public opposition.

Not surprisingly, the bill was approved in October with minor changes. The only significant change was to the title, and the bill's articles were just as repressive as the 1963 subversion law it sought to replace. The bill fooled no one but the as-yet unreformed House. Outside the House, protesters clashed with security forces deployed to safeguard legislators deliberating the bill. At least four protesters were killed and dozens more injured in these clashes.

The nation has barely recovered from that traumatic experience, and now the House speaker is trying to convince President Abdurrahman to sign the bill into law. His argument that the military has no legal tools to operate in emergency situations rings hollow. His warning that failing to sign the bill into law would mean reactivating the old 1963 subversion law sounds like a threat.

Rather than using empty rhetoric and threats, Akbar should share with the rest of us the likely threats to national security that make this security bill necessary, if any exist. Better still, he should share with us his real motive for reintroducing the bill to the national agenda. Even the TNI's current leadership, who have the most interest in having this bill enacted into law, has remained silent. If Akbar is not speaking for the people or, as it seems, for the present military leadership, then who is he speaking on behalf of? One can only speculate.

We have no reason to fear that President Abdurrahman will succumb to Akbar's demand. Abdurrahman, of all people, knows the security bill runs counter to his own democratic principles. After all, Abdurrahman has almost single-handedly cut the once powerful military down to size in the short time he has been in office. He is not likely to sign the bill when even his unreformist predecessor, B.J. Habibie, could not bring himself to sign it, notwithstanding pressure from Wiranto.

Now that Akbar has put the bill back on the national political agenda, reformist factions in the House should seize the opportunity to kill the legislation once and for all. Any future bills dealing with emergency situations must be introduced through the initiative of civilians. The people of this country were trampled on by the military for more than 32 years, and do not wish to repeat the experience. The ball is not in the President's hands. It is actually back in the House's court.